Cure For Hepaitits C has been found !!! But it will cost you $100,000

This just goes to show that the health industry is in it for the money and not to help those who are in need. Their allegiance lies with whoever pays
the most not the sick and needy. We live in an bassackwards world.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
This just goes to show that the health industry is in it for the money and not to help those who are in need. Their allegiance lies with whoever pays
the most not the sick and needy. We live in an bassackwards world.

No, the problem is that people want medications that have been tested in to the end of the earth, absolutely effective, with zero side effects, and
they want to sue for a billion dollars if anything at all goes wrong and they don't want to pay a cent out of their own pockets.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
This just goes to show that the health industry is in it for the money and not to help those who are in need. Their allegiance lies with whoever pays
the most not the sick and needy. We live in an bassackwards world.

Of course they are in it for the money,

that is how capitalism works.

what you think that they should do it for free, or that they should not try to maximize their profits because if they stop doing that then the also
stop producing future drugs.

I for example am a Nurse, I do it firstly for the money (god knows why) and secondly (yes secondly) because I enjoy going into work to provide care to
my patients. But if i was not getting paid to go into work every day, I would not be going into work.

Healthcare is not charity!

Its business at the end of the day with our current economic system it all comes down to money.

For years now there has been a cap on how much you can sue for medical malpractice, and effects from drugs.

Honestly a lot of the new drugs scare me. I have seen people die from them.

I would also be afraid to goto another country, who knows if you are getting the real deal.

As I said before, yes , I see the need for profit, but when it is this high, there is no justifying it.

edit on 12-4-2014 by amatrine because:
(no reason given)

Med mal and drugs are two different thing. A cap on med mal has nothing to do with suing drug manufacturers. When our government bureaucracy causes
the cost of bringing a drug to market into the billions, much less the hundreds of millions that the drugs that were not approved, how much is
"fair" in your eyes? People want drugs tested to infinity. They want drugs that are effective with no side effects and they demand the government
make regulations to make this so. Then they don't understand why they cost so much. This makes no sense. Accept some risk and have cheaper drugs or
accept that regulatory demands are costly. The voters are part to blame for the cost.

Given that, would you not agree that keeping that same bloated and wasteful government out of our healthcare is also a good idea?

Okay, repeal the FDA, Medicare, etc.

See, all or nothing stances are silly, we have to have some form of government.

Its why RP gets quickly mocked (I volunteered for the paul campaign )

Far to often the Libertarian stance falls for the same trap that everyone else does, the death of compromise.

The whole point of our system of government is to debate, not MY WAY OR THE HIGH WAY.

Taken as a whole, YES less government is better. Some government is needed, but we can't get to that apparently, because no one debates.

No one compromises.

Its become a dirty word.

I say That in a perfect world, Socialize staple goods, like education, like health, like water, like food, flat tax, and luxury goods for free
market.

Taken there, its just a statement of in an IDEAL situation what would work, so forgive me if my stance was not spoken properly, BARING that.

Education would solve everything, it would lead to cheaper research, etc.

SO if we HAVE to subsidize an industry, I would much rather have it be on Education, than a war economy and policing the globe.

Now, back to the stance as a whole.

That compromise thing, we are at the point we are (government in healthcare and Aca, as that seems to be the angle you've taken from my stance) FOR
the very reason that there is no more compromise.

Government most certainly experienced a systemic failure, and to think that the PEOPLE IN IT NOW, REPS and DEMS, can get this country into any better
shape is insanity.

Doing the same thing over and over again, expecting something else is insane, so I get, that right now, Government is a cluster and no I wouldn't
trust them with plastic spork let alone health care.

But in a perfect world?

You fail in demands for socialization of staple goods. Socialization of staple goods has, in evidence of history, provided shortages of staple goods.
Socialization always brings failure. It is a Star Trek pipe dream.

You say you don't trust government, but you want it to protect you from "evil corporations." Which is it?

We shouldn't subsidize ANY industry because subsidization leads to control--control by those very people you don't trust. How logical is that?

It cost money, but this much? I quoted this above , on another post from a news source : According to this report from the U.S. Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid, the cost to treat all Americans who have hepatitis C with Sovaldi would cost $227 billion—it currently costs $260 billion a year for
all drugs bought in the country.

The cost of ALL DRUGS bought in the USA in one year is a LOT!! I think they got their research, and then some and then some again.

It cost money, but this much? I quoted this above , on another post from a news source : According to this report from the U.S. Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid, the cost to treat all Americans who have hepatitis C with Sovaldi would cost $227 billion—it currently costs $260 billion a year for
all drugs bought in the country.

The cost of ALL DRUGS bought in the USA in one year is a LOT!! I think they got their research, and then some and then some again.

But you don't present the costs of bringing it to market do you? You don't present the costs of litigation, of watching Lawyer commercials on TV
telling you to call if you have any problems from using the drug, do you? You don't explore the costs of foreign markets stealing their research and
selling their medication that they developed, do you?

There is a hell of a lot more that goes into the cost of the drug than "those evil corporations being all corporationy."

(Reuters) - India's Natco Pharma Ltd (NATP.NS) has formally asked the Indian patent office to deny U.S. drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc's (GILD.O)
new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi a patent in India, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said.

If successful, the move could clear the way for the Indian company to launch a cheap generic version of the drug.
The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) supported I-MAK's opposition and believes a 12-week course of treatment and diagnosis should
cost no more than $500, saying a high cost would put the drug out of reach to most of the 90 percent of hepatitis C patients living in low-and
middle-income countries.

Egypt, where Gilead has agreed a voluntary deal to cut its drug price by 99 percent, has the world's highest prevalence of the liver-destroying
virus.

So it seems that the US will pay 1,000 per pill but elsewhere in the World the cost could be as little as 1% of that?

(Reuters) - India's Natco Pharma Ltd (NATP.NS) has formally asked the Indian patent office to deny U.S. drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc's (GILD.O)
new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi a patent in India, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said.

If successful, the move could clear the way for the Indian company to launch a cheap generic version of the drug.
The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) supported I-MAK's opposition and believes a 12-week course of treatment and diagnosis should
cost no more than $500, saying a high cost would put the drug out of reach to most of the 90 percent of hepatitis C patients living in low-and
middle-income countries.

Egypt, where Gilead has agreed a voluntary deal to cut its drug price by 99 percent, has the world's highest prevalence of the liver-destroying
virus.

So it seems that the US will pay 1,000 per pill but elsewhere in the World the cost could be as little as 1% of that?

hmmmm...

Peace

Simple. Because they did not have to pay for the research and development, they have no QA so you risk contaminated medicine, and there is no recourse
and no lawsuits if you have a bad reaction. If you want all of these safeguards, it will increase cost. IF you are willing to accept more risk and
less accountability, then it will be cheaper, but I know that those who cry about evil corporations do not want to accept more risk for a cheaper
product. It is just hyperbole.

If we were human, so many diseases we could cure for those in need. If we were human, so much food we could supply to those in need. If we were human,
so much shelter we could offer to those in need. Money would not be the obstacle. It would just be the right thing to do.

Sometimes, I think we are still Neanderthals in our way of thinking and acting. This OP is just an example out of many.

You fail in demands for socialization of staple goods. Socialization of staple goods has, in evidence of history, provided shortages of staple goods.
Socialization always brings failure. It is a Star Trek pipe dream.

You say you don't trust government, but you want it to protect you from "evil corporations." Which is it?

We shouldn't subsidize ANY industry because subsidization leads to control--control by those very people you don't trust. How logical is that?

Alright, lets do it, Im on board.

Ive voted the right ways, ive signed on to the right campaigns.

Lets remove all subsidizes, Im all for it, period.

Wont happen, Im all for it.

So since we are talking "ideals" Yeah in a star trek cornocopia society where technology has reached a level where scarcity is a thing of the past,
it would be possible.

What part of in an Ideal world didn't translate?

But we don't live in that world, NOR do we live in a world where government WONT subsidize.

We need to do things like repeal citizens united, tackle lobbying reform, get senators down to 2 terms max, address the tax code.

Baring a wish granting genie, we have to live in the real world.

I don't want a Rep Majority in congress trying to fix things the Dems screwed up, any more than I want Dems doing the reverse.

Subsidies wont stop, and the two parties will stand.

Nothing will get fixed, So lets just keep everything par the course?

F-education?
F-healthcare?

The old healthcare rules, frankly equally flawed as the current one, just the current one spreads the misery around a whole lot more.

We have a government where any "reform" is bad reform, time for new Representation.

(Reuters) - India's Natco Pharma Ltd (NATP.NS) has formally asked the Indian patent office to deny U.S. drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc's (GILD.O)
new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi a patent in India, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said.

If successful, the move could clear the way for the Indian company to launch a cheap generic version of the drug.
The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) supported I-MAK's opposition and believes a 12-week course of treatment and diagnosis should cost
no more than $500, saying a high cost would put the drug out of reach to most of the 90 percent of hepatitis C patients living in low-and
middle-income countries.

Egypt, where Gilead has agreed a voluntary deal to cut its drug price by 99 percent, has the world's highest prevalence of the liver-destroying
virus.

So it seems that the US will pay 1,000 per pill but elsewhere in the World the cost could be as little as 1% of that?

hmmmm...

Peace

Simple. Because they did not have to pay for the research and development, they have no QA so you risk contaminated medicine, and there is no recourse
and no lawsuits if you have a bad reaction. If you want all of these safeguards, it will increase cost. IF you are willing to accept more risk and
less accountability, then it will be cheaper, but I know that those who cry about evil corporations do not want to accept more risk for a cheaper
product. It is just hyperbole.

The article blatantly states that the manufacturer is hoping to agree to a voluntary deal to sell its own drug and avoid rip offs.

The pro capitalism logic presented in this entire thread is wrong.

Based on the logic that R&D, lawyers ect mark up this drug to $1000 a pill, then literally EVERY new drug should be $1000 a pill. Every new drug has
to pay the same ridiculous FDA fees, go through clinicals, ect - The reason this particular pill is $1000 a pill is because it "saves lives" so they
are leveraging your life to charge $1000 vs say leveraging your hardon to charge $7/viagra.

Milk thistle, Selenium, and intravenous vitamin C (50-75 gr. via IV in a 9% saline solution, three times a week for 4-5 months.)

Case closed, 1000$ pills dismissed.

Excellent. Please provide proof that his cures Hep C. (You seriously advocate 75 GRAMS of vitamin C via IV? Have you ever even seen what a sludge
that solution would look like? Obviously you are not talking from personal experience, are you?)

(Reuters) - India's Natco Pharma Ltd (NATP.NS) has formally asked the Indian patent office to deny U.S. drugmaker Gilead Sciences Inc's (GILD.O)
new hepatitis C drug Sovaldi a patent in India, a source with direct knowledge of the matter said.

If successful, the move could clear the way for the Indian company to launch a cheap generic version of the drug.
The medical charity Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) supported I-MAK's opposition and believes a 12-week course of treatment and diagnosis should
cost no more than $500, saying a high cost would put the drug out of reach to most of the 90 percent of hepatitis C patients living in low-and
middle-income countries.

Egypt, where Gilead has agreed a voluntary deal to cut its drug price by 99 percent, has the world's highest prevalence of the liver-destroying
virus.

So it seems that the US will pay 1,000 per pill but elsewhere in the World the cost could be as little as 1% of that?

hmmmm...

Peace

Simple. Because they did not have to pay for the research and development, they have no QA so you risk contaminated medicine, and there is no recourse
and no lawsuits if you have a bad reaction. If you want all of these safeguards, it will increase cost. IF you are willing to accept more risk and
less accountability, then it will be cheaper, but I know that those who cry about evil corporations do not want to accept more risk for a cheaper
product. It is just hyperbole.

The article blatantly states that the manufacturer is hoping to agree to a voluntary deal to sell its own drug and avoid rip offs.

The logic pro capitalism presented in this entire thread is wrong.

Based on the logic that R&D, lawyers ect mark up this drug to $1000 a pill, then literally EVERY new drug should be $1000 a pill. Every new drug has
to pay the same ridiculous FDA fees, go through clinicals, ect - The reason this particular pill is $1000 a pill is because it "saves lives" so they
are leveraging your life to charge $1000 vs say leveraging your hardon to charge $7/viagra.

edit on Apr-05:00pm3007 by Krystian because: (no
reason given)

Actually, you are quite wrong, not every drug goes through the same FDA criteria. Drugs that deal with life threatening issues and have a more serious
potential life altering effects go through more scrutiny. Want to know how I know you don't know what you are talking about?

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.